Why the FAA May Finally Relax In-Flight Device Rules 278
Nick Bilton at the New York Times has been writing skeptically for years about the FAA's ban on even the most benign electronic devices during takeoff and landing on commercial passenger flights. He writes in the NYT's Bits column about the gradual transformation that may (real soon now) result in slightly more sensible rules; a committee established to review some of those in-flight rules has recommended the FAA ease up, at least on devices with no plausible negative effect on navigation. From the article: "The New York Times employed EMT Labs, an independent testing facility in Mountain View, Calif., to see if a Kindle actually gave off enough electromagnetic emissions to affect a plane. The findings: An Amazon Kindle emitted less than 30 microvolts per meter when in use. That is only 0.00003 of a volt. A Boeing 747 must withstand 200 volts per square meter. That is millions of Kindles packed into each square meter of the plane. Still, the F.A.A. said “No.” ... But then something started to change: society." Of course, the rules that committees recommend aren't always the ones that prevail on the ground or in the sky.
Seems simple enough (Score:4, Insightful)
There is zero evidence, so the FAA should change the rules.
Oh wait, this is federal government bureaucracy here. They will discuss ad nauseam for several years, then decide it's not worth the political risk.
Silly (Score:3, Insightful)
During most flights, about half of the cell phones remain turned on because passengers don't really know how to turn them off. Cell phone transmitters are a lot more powerful than wifi transmitters. the best way to stop cell phone use is to have a pico-cell in the airplane that intercepts teh calls and tells the passengers to shut down. The picocell is also so stong that the cell phones redujce thier TX power to almost nothing instead of ontreasing their power to reach cell towers outside of the aircraft.
The real reason to prohibit use of these devices is that takeoff and landing is statistically the most crash-prone and crash-survivable part of a flight, so the passengers should be paying attention. But this is true only for about one minute, not for the entire gate-to-10,000 ft time or 10.000 ft-to-landing time.
Re:Questions (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd rather someone's kindle hit me than the latest "Game of Thrones" novel.
If devices left on could take a plane down... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
so the passengers should be paying attention
Paying attention to what? The fuel pressure? The air speed? The angle of the flaps?
If the plane's about to crash, get on the intercom and tell them you're about to crash. I guarantee you'll get their attention.
Like the reporter has a clue... (Score:5, Insightful)
EMF fields are measured in V/m. He's got one side right, but the "200 volts per square meter," is nonsense. Additionally, the actual 200 V/m measure is from RTCA DO-160 Section 20 [wikipedia.org], and refers to external fields, which are in large part shielded by an aircraft's metal skin. And, the criteria for success is not a lack of interference, but whether the aircraft will continue to operate after experiencing a brief event of that magnitude. Indeed, there is every expectation that normal communications will be lost when subject to that level of signal.
A better, and more honest, comparison for that 30 uV/m the Kindle put out would be to consider that a decent FM radio can get stereo reception with a signal of 2 uV/M. That's reasonable, as FM frequencies (88-108 MHz) have similar characteristics compared to those used for aircraft communications (108-137 MHz), which are immediately adjacent. RTCA DO-196 [rtca.org] assumes a radio sensitivity of 20 uV. So, a Kindle can compete in signal strength with those normally received by an aircraft communications receiver.
This issue is not what level of emissions from a device will cause damage, but whether they can interfere with aircraft operations. Just as the author conflates uV/m with uV/m^2, he's also ignorant of what's really important.
Having said that, it's unlikely that a Kindle (the example given) emits enough in the aircraft radio band to cause problems. I'd be more concerned with a bunch of cell phones, each with a GPS receiver built in, interfering with the aircraft's GPS based systems. GPS operates at even lower levels. But, I'd trust someone who actually understands the issues to make a real study to determine the risks, rather than take the word of an obviously biased ("writing skeptically for years") writer who gets even the basics wrong, after years of writing about the subject (or is being deliberately disingenuous).
Rules? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure nullyfies any FAA relaxation.
Re:Seems simple enough (Score:2, Insightful)
There is zero need to use electronic devices during taking and landing, so the FAA should play it safe.
Re:Like the reporter has a clue... (Score:5, Insightful)
A 1:1000 chance isn't good enough for a bad guy, who risks being caught. But doubling the risk of flying so people can use doodads for 30 minutes more per flight isn't good for the public, either.
The burden of proof is to show, not that personal electronics cause problems, but to show that they don't. And that's across all of the ones encountered, not just the ones working to factory specifications.
Re:Like the reporter has a clue... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be more concerned with a bunch of cell phones, each with a GPS receiver built in, interfering with the aircraft's GPS based systems.
Erm, for a guy who managed to get most of the technical detail right, you flubbed this one pretty bad; a GPS receiver is just that, a receiver. With the exception of the RF front end, it's all processed inside a chunk of silicon. So there should be very, very little interference from one, or even fifty, of them, unless there's a defect in the cell phone itself that is causing EMI -- something unintentionally functioning as an antenna.
All electronic devices emit EMI, but suggesting that the GPS receiver portion of a cell phone is any more or less capable of causing interference to the GPS signal absent any testing to support this, is flat out bogus. Anything can interfere with a GPS signal; A GPS receiver is no more or less likely to do so -- they don't have crystals in them that oscillate at the same frequency like old shortwave radios. Unless you can provide some documentation that the design of all cell phone GPS receivers has some flaw that causes it to emit enough EMI to disrupt the same signals its designed to receive, I have to call this myth busted.
Re:Like the reporter has a clue... (Score:5, Insightful)
But lessor, unintentional interference, spread across millions of flights per year, may increase the risk so that one (or more) has a life threatening problem.
A person boarding the craft (Lets say a sexy blonde) may catch the eye of the pilot, who may start fantasizing about them mid-flight, and miss an important indicator. Therefore, no sexy blondes on board the plane. Sure, it's not likely to happen, but "lessor, unintentional interference, spread across millions of flights per year, may increase the risk"....
A tiny, tiny, tiny chance that something MAY increase the RISK of something bad happening, and we're banning all electronic devices in flight. Sheesh. Pussies.
Re:Silly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Journalistic pseudo-science (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a certain degree of arrogance among passengers that goes along the lines of "if the crew can do this, so should I." Remember, in flight, the aircraft cabin is not a democracy. You take orders from the Captain and the Crew working on his or her behalf. If you do not, you can be forced, using whatever means necessary to attain compliance.
STFU and get on the other side of your locked cabin door, you glorified chauffeur.
Re:Seems simple enough (Score:4, Insightful)
but by the rules everything that could fly off your hands should be stowed away during takeoff and landing.
Bullshit. My Kindle ways less than a paperback, yet you're allowed hardback books and children up to 2 years old, which are far heavier. What you propose might make sense, but its not a rule.
Re:Like the reporter has a clue... (Score:4, Insightful)
More than one. How many people absent-mindedly carry a GUN to the airport? Now imagine how many people ignore or defy the order to shut off the phone, just because.
I'm sure in the last decade every plane in the sky has carried at least 3-4 fully activated, broadcasting devices onboard, and in the last 5 years it's probably more like 10-15. These things are everywhere in our lives now.